AbstractThe eight-point extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) is commonly used as the primary outcome measure in traumatic brain injury (TBI) clinical trials. The outcome is conventionally collected through a structured interview with the patient alone or together with a caretaker. Despite the fact that using the structured interview questionnaires helps reach agreement in GOSE assessment between raters, significant variation remains among different raters. We introduce an alternate GOSE rating system as an aid in determining GOSE scores, with the objective of reducing inter-rater variation in the primary outcome assessment in TBI trials. Forty-five trauma centers were randomly assigned to three groups to assess GOSE scores on sample cases, using the alternative GOSE rating system coupled with central quality control (Group 1), the alternative system alone (Group 2), or conventional structured interviews (Group 3). The inter-rater variation between an expert and untrained raters was assessed for each group and reported through raw agreement and with weighted kappa (κ) statistics. Groups 2 and 3 without central review yielded inter-rater agreements of 83% (weighted κ = 0.81; 95% CI 0.69, 0.92) and 83% (weighted κ = 0.76, 95% CI 0.63, 0.89), respectively, in GOS scores. In GOSE, the groups had an agreement of 76% (weighted κ = 0.79; 95% CI 0.69, 0.89), and 63% (weighted κ = 0.70; 95% CI 0.60, 0.81), respectively. The group using the alternative rating system coupled with central monitoring yielded the highest inter-rater agreement among the three groups in rating GOS (97%; weighted κ = 0.95; 95% CI 0.89, 1.00), and GOSE (97%; weighted κ = 0.97; 95% CI 0.91, 1.00). The alternate system is an improved GOSE rating method that reduces inter-rater variations and provides for the first time, source documentation and structured narratives that allow a thorough central review of information. The data suggest that a collective effort can be made to minimize inter-rater variation.